Luke v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Luke v. Travis

22 A.D.3d 1011, 802 N.Y.S.2d 385

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 1011 (Luke v. Travis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Luke v. Travis, 22 A.D.3d 1011, 802 N.Y.S.2d 385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered March 2, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Since the July 22, 2003 determination giving rise to this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner has reappeared before the Board of Parole and his request for parole release has again been denied. Given petitioner’s subsequent reappearance before the Board in July 2005, the instant matter must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Ayala v New York State Bd. of Parole, 17 AD3d 946 [2005]).

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered March 2, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Since the July 22, 2003 determination giving rise to this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner has reappeared before the Board of Parole and his request for parole release has again been denied. Given petitioner’s subsequent reappearance before the Board in July 2005, the instant matter must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Ayala v New York State Bd. of Parole, 17 AD3d 946 [2005]).

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 1011, 802 N.Y.S.2d 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luke-v-travis-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack